Sterling Anthony – Page 5 – Packaging Expert Witness

Packaging expert witness on warnings case

by Sterling Anthony, CPP, expert witness, packaging, warnings, patent infringement, cargo loading & securement, insurance claims

Case Synopsis:

A mother purchased a plastic tub of Plaster of Paris at an arts-and-craft store for a project with her daughter. Said project involved making a cast of the daughter’s hand. After mixing the Plaster of Paris, the mother told the daughter to insert the right hand. The plaster hardened, entrapping the daughter’s hand, during which time, the daughter complained of a burning sensation in that hand. After various failed attempts to free the daughter’s hand, the mother did so by breaking the plaster with a hammer. By then, the daughter had incurred burns to the hand, so severe that surgery and partial amputation of fingers resulted.

The ensuing litigation against the manufacturer of the Plaster of Paris alleged that the product was defective and unreasonably dangerous due to failure-to-warn.

I was retained by the attorney for the Defense.

My opinions:

A duty to warn manifests when a product embodies a hazard, such that a reasonably prudent and alert person nonetheless needs to be informed/reminded and instructed, in order to be able to behave in a manner that avoids harm. To be adequate, a warning must conform to well-established guidelines as to content and format.

The Plaster of Paris was not defective nor unreasonably dangerous. Adequate warnings were prominently displayed on the packaging (plastic tub). The warnings, rendered in capitals, included statements directly relevant to the incident, namely: AVOID CONTACT WITH SKIN AND EYES; WHEN MIXED WITH WATER, THIS MATERIAL HARDENS AND THEN SLOWLY BECOMES HOT; DO NOT ATTEMPT TO MAKE A CAST ENCLOSING ANY PART OF THE BODY; and, FAILURE TO FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS MAY CAUSE BURNS.

The mother admitted in her Deposition that she had read the warnings in the store and again at home; irrespectively, she claimed that she did not voluntarily assume risk because she was not left with an appreciation for the degree of the hazard and the extent of the risk. In support of her claims, the lawyer for Plaintiff had argued in the Complaint that there were differences in wording between the warnings on the packaging and those on the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS).

Plaintiff’s claims notwithstanding, the warnings on the packaging were unambiguous. The mother was not claiming that she could not interpret their meanings; rather, the mother chose not to comply. Such was not the fault of the warnings, since warnings can’t force compliance; after all, people are known to intentionally disregard red traffic lights or even flashing railroad-crossing signals. A warning on a package and a warning on a MSDS are directed to separate readers (the consumers of the product and the employees of the product manufacturer, respectively). The two don’t have to be identical syllable-for-syllable, only adequate for the given reader. In the case-at-issue, the differences in wording were neither substantive nor causal to the incident.

Result: The case settled.

Sterling Anthony, CPP, is a consultant to the industrial, institutional, and government sectors and an expert to the legal community. He is a former manager at Fortune 100 companies and a former instructor at two major universities. His contact information is: 100 Renaissance Center-Box 43176, Detroit, MI 48243; (office) 313-531-1875; (cell) 313-623-0522; (fax) 313-531-1972; thepackagingexpertwitness@gmail; www.thepackagingexpertwitness.com

Packaging expert on in-store fall case

by Sterling Anthony, CPP, expert witness, packaging, warnings, patent infringement, cargo loading & securement, insurance claims

Case synopsis:

A woman shopper at a major retailer took an aerobic stepper from the shelf. The packaging consisted of: a printed placard, sized to cover the top surface of the stepper; and, plastic shrink wrap that completely enshrouded the stepper. Prominently depicted on the placard was a woman dressed in exercise tights, performing step aerobics. The shopper placed the stepper, still packaged, on the floor and then stepped up and onto the product. The product slid forward along the floor. The woman fell to the floor and sustained serious injuries.

The ensuing litigation against the manufacturer and the retailer alleged defective packaging, an unreasonably dangerous product, and failure-to-warn.

I was retained by the attorney for Plaintiff.

My opinions:

I testified at trial.

The packaging embodied a design defect, inherent in each exemplar. The defect was that the packaging neutralized a safety feature of the product, namely, the non-skid discs, one each at the four corners of the stepper. As long as the stepper was in the packaging, the non-skid discs couldn’t be in contact with the floor.

The packaging embodied a marketing defect. The defect was the failure-to-warn that the packaging should be removed before any use of the product.

The two defects resulted in an unreasonably dangerous product and were direct and proximate causes to the accident.

It was foreseeable that a shopper might attempt an in-store trial of the stepper. The sturdiness of the product, required for its being fit for its intended use, was not dissuasive of such a trial. Nor was it dissuasive that such a trial would not sully the surface of the product and its placard, since both were protected by the shrink wrap.

It was foreseeable that an uncarpeted, hard surface store aisle would not provide sufficient friction to prevent a stepper enshrouded in plastic shrink wrap from sliding.

It was foreseeable that, without adequate warnings, a shopper would not be aware of the hazard to safety associated with attempting an in-store trial. Plaintiff’s actions were not reckless, nor did they constitute a willing assumption of risk. The placard’s depiction promoted the belief that it was not dangerous to step up and onto the product. The difference between what the placard depicted and what Plaintiff attempted was that, in the latter case, the product still was in its packaging. Plaintiff had no way of knowing that the difference was crucial.

The state-of-the-art in packaging afforded alternatives that were technologically and financially feasible. One would have been to package the stepper in a carton, printed with necessary product promotion and information. A shopper would have been less prone to step on a carton; furthermore, even if stepped on, a carton would have been less prone to sliding along a floor.

Result:

Verdict for Plaintiff.

Packaging expert witness defines packaging

by Sterling Anthony, CPP, expert witness, packaging, warnings, patent infringement, cargo loading & securement, insurance claims

Whether at a deposition or at trial, an expert might be asked to define his/her specialty. In most instances, the response can be kept short without undue sacrifice in comprehension, for example: Marketing is a business discipline concerned with the identification of customer wants and needs and the fulfillment of those wants and needs with products and services.

Unless a specialty is arcane, preexisting familiarity on the parts of the stakeholders (i.e. attorneys, jury, and Court) likely will only need to be confirmed. Packaging is an exception; for, the familiarity that practically everyone claims is based on misconceptions. That’s because what most people have in mind are packages, understandable given that packages are ubiquitous in our lives——in stores, in markets, and in our homes. But packaging and package are not synonymous terms: a package is an element; packaging is a system.

Definition:

Packaging is a system, within which, containers, materials, accessories, and components are combined to enable and facilitate the manufacture, distribution, and marketing of goods.

Containers include those that most readily come to mind, such as bottles, jars, cans, boxes, cartons, bags, pouches, wraps, trays, tubes, etc., but also the likes of sacks, crates, barrels, bins, and racks. The categories of products that utilize the containers include consumer non-durables, institutional, military, and industrial.

Materials can be rigid, semi-rigid, or flexible, used singularly or in combination, namely: wood, paper, paperboard, metal, glass, and plastics.

Accessories include closures, labels, stretch-wrap, shrink-wrap, seals, ties, fasteners, strapping, dunnage, cushioning, and adhesives.

Components include pallets, slip-sheets, and skids.

Containers, materials, accessories and components comprise the physical packaging, and their combination with goods and products is at the core of the system. There are components of the system that precede that combination and others that proceed it. The former includes research, design, development, sourcing, testing, trials, receipt, storage, line-feed, and line machinery operations. The latter includes line-takeaway, and unitizing, in addition to those components enacted upon the now packaged goods, namely: in-house storage, transportation, warehousing, selling (whether through retail or another form of acquisition), use, and disposal/reuse.

The overwhelming majority of goods require packaging, the exception being raw materials, in bulk, for example, ore. The more the value that’s added to raw materials through manufacturing and processing, the more the need for packaging. Without packaging, as herein defined, the mass manufacturing, distribution, and marketing of goods would not be possible, and, hence, nor would the associated conveniences, notably, uniformity of quality, time-saving, labor-saving, and personal health & safety. An example: rather than modern, self-service retailing, we’d still be in the era of the cracker barrel store, the old-fashioned apothecary, and the nails-scooped-into-a-paper bag-hardware store.

For all its contributions to our quality-of-life, packaging’s variety and complexity renders it subject to an equal variety and complexity of issues, and depending on the nature of an issue and its consequences, litigation might ensue. Packaging-related litigation has been known to include product liability, personal injury, failure-to-warn, falling merchandise, material-handling safety, cargo loading & securement, insurance claims for loss and damaged cargo, patent infringement, and trade-dress infringement——the list not offered as being exhaustive.

An attorney involved in packaging-related litigation will recognize the need for an expert, who, if required, can also serve as an expert witness. But what should the attorney seek in an expert, beyond, of course, talents related to the facts of the case? Ideally, the expert will have expertise, experience, education, training, and an overall background that empower the expert to deliver services from multiple perspectives. In contrast, if, for example, the curriculum vitae shows that the expert’s career(s) have been spent wholly or mostly in a single industry or institution, that expert’s approach might be commensurately restricted. On the other hand, the approach of an expert whose credentials are relevant AND diversified can enable greater creativity and keener insights.

Past employment in industry is a plus, especially when it includes managerial positions; for, it bestows insider’s knowledge that’s difficult, if not impossible, to otherwise obtain. Current work as a consultant is valuable, particularly of aid in benchmarking and the determination of best practices and state-of-the-art. A stint in academia bespeaks honed skills as a teacher and a communicator, useful throughout a case and in front of a jury. Rounding out the profile, commitment to one’s specialty, as evidenced by memberships, offices held, and certifications add to credibility.

In summary, by definition, packaging-related litigation is fraught with a multitude of factors, necessitating that, in the vetting of candidates, the attorney seeks the best “package deal” in an expert.

7 ways attorney derives more from packaging expert

by Sterling Anthony, CPP, expert witness, packaging, warnings, patent infringement, cargo loading & securement, insurance claims

Engage the packaging expert as early as feasible. Any veteran expert can recount instances of being contacted by an attorney who’s under a time crunch, practically needing an expert yesterday. Whatever the reasons behind the delay, opportunities have been lost. There’s a shorter time for the vetting process, especially with multiple candidates. Even if the attorney has a particular candidate in mind, that candidate might not be available, worse if the unavailability is due to having been retained by an opposing attorney. It shouldn’t be just about finding an expert who can perform under tight timing; for, whatever the performance, it arguably could be better, given more time.

For Plaintiff attorneys and Defense attorneys, alike, being proactive pays dividends, especially for a Plaintiff attorney who’s not sure of the merits of a contemplated case. Before filing the Complaint, with Discovery being scant, it’s likely that it’ll only require a few hours of an expert’s time to provide an opinion. If the expert performs impressively, and regardless of the opinion rendered, the attorney will be left with either of two favorable options: file and retain the expert; or, not file but remember the expert for future cases.

Set ground rules for the expert. Since every attorney has a preferred way of working with experts, those preferences should be made known from the onset. Attorney and expert comprise a working relationship; however, it’s not one of equals. The expert is not the advocate, and, therefore, should defer (within ethical limits) to the attorney’s ways of working a case. That’s not to suggest that the attorney needs to be a micromanager; nonetheless, it’s prudent not to leave certain issues to assumption.

An issue that illustrates that fact is work-product, more specifically, what is and isn’t discoverable. The attorney’s position on note-taking by an expert is an example. Whatever the position, does it extend to the annotating of deposition transcripts? Does the attorney take different positions depending on whether the case is federal or state? Does the attorney take different positions depending on whether the expert has been retained to only consult or to also testify? No expert wants to compromise whatever privacy privileges that attach to work-product, but necessary to such avoidance is that the attorney establishes ground rules.

Address problems with the expert immediately. No problem should be considered too small to address, although the response should be commensurate with the size of the problem. Not to do so is to implicitly endorse the problem, thereby increasing the probability of repeat or exacerbation.

While acknowledging that a problem can originate from either party, the following example addresses one from the perspective of the attorney: taking issue with——or, at least needing further explanation about—— an expert’s invoice. The expert should be able to explain and justify every item of the invoice, ideally with documentation to the attorney’s satisfaction. A problem (and it’s a big one) that never should arise is billing for work that has not been authorized; for, that’s an indication of an out-of-control expert.

Don’t choke the expert with purse strings. An attorney owes cost-effectiveness to the client; however, it would be a contradiction to that maxim to prevent the expert from performing necessary work, simply for purposes of expenses. If, for example, a site inspection by the expert is advisable or if it’s advisable that the expert see, handle, examine, etc., an exemplar, the attorney should authorize such activities. The alternative is to jeopardize the expert’s credibility. That’s a handicap that won’t escape the notice of an experienced opposing counsel, particularly if the expert’s expertise is central, for example, a packaging expert in a case alleging an unreasonably dangerous product due to defective packaging.

Frugality need not be discarded, though. Flying coach, moderate lodging, and modest dining are common-sense practices to which no expert should object. The expert can further contribute by arriving with a well-conceived agenda that is carried out with dispatch, saving time and money.

Challenge the expert’s creativity. Attorney and expert are experienced in the type of case that brought them together. Whereas the upside is self-evident, the downside can be underappreciated. The more times something is repeated, the greater the chance that the thing will be done by rote. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. A better philosophy: If it ain’t broke, improve it. The case objectives never change: prove or disprove the allegations to a preponderance of the evidence; however, success in the pursuit of the objectives can hinge on creativity.

The expert should approach the case from multiple perspectives, constantly searching for something overlooked, something hiding in plain sight that can be utilized for a competitive advantage. An expert can endorse the attorney’s theories without being just a sounding board or a programed agent. The expert performs a valuable service by getting an attorney to rethink assumptions. An expert should demonstrate self-initiative regarding creativity, but the attorney should make it known from the onset that creativity by the expert is expected.

Involve the expert in case strategy. Valuable experts serve not only in a tactical role but also in a strategic one. For discovery, an expert can inform on the necessity of certain evidence, enabling the attorney to acquire it through requests for admission, requests for production, or interrogatories, whichever is appropriate. Using as an example the aforementioned case involving an unreasonably dangerous product due to defective packaging, the attorney who unilaterally decides on what evidence is pertinent, might not know to request a particular specification, or perhaps certain quality assurance records.

As for the other discovery tool, depositions, collaboration between attorney and expert should extend beyond the former’s preparation of the latter. An expert always should be consulted about the questions to be asked of the opposing expert. On a related note, attorneys know the wisdom in supplying experts with all pertinent deposition transcripts; however, there’s more to it than informing the expert on who said what. The attorney and expert should have phone discussions to exchange takeaways on the various deponents. Perhaps the expert has noted a technical error or some other verbal miscue by a deponent that can be utilized for strategic advantage.

Express gratitude to the expert as deserved. Well accustomed to working with experts, attorneys are not easily impressed; therefore, an attorney should acknowledge exceptional service. An expert should be committed to excellence, regardless, and when it’s delivered, recognition can be a powerful motivator and reinforcement.

Lastly, when an attorney has need for a particular type of expert and immediately thinks of a candidate based on prior collaboration, time is saved, time that can be devoted to other aspects of trying the case. That, in itself, is worth the occasional verbal pat on the back.